Do, Logan H. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

14774899 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/774,899 09/11/2015 Logan H. Do 71526US03;
67097-2487PUS1
8237
54549 7590 01/14/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, DANIELLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOGAN H. DO and RICHARD L. SYKES

Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–18, and 20–22. Claims 3 and 19
were cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 See Response to the Non-Final Action entered March 5, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention generally relates to a gas turbine engines that includes a
plurality of variable vanes. Abstract. Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is directed to a gas turbine engine including a plurality of variable
vanes. Claim 15 is directed to a variable vane assembly. Claim 18 is
directed to a method for actuating a variable vane assembly. As
background, the Specification describes that a gas turbine engine typically
includes a fan section, a compressor section, a combustion section, and a
turbine section. Spec. ¶ 2. Air entering the compressor section is
compressed and delivered into the combustion section where it is mixed with
fuel and ignited to generate a high-speed exhaust gas flow. Id. The high-
speed exhaust gas flow expands through the turbine section to drive the
compressor and the fan section. Id.
Further, as background, the Specification describes that certain areas
of the engine, for example, the compressor, may include variable vanes and
that the variable vanes may be connected to a synchronizing ring through
vane arms. Id. ¶ 5. According to such background information, “[t]he vanes
are driven by the sync-rings, which rotate clockwise and counterclockwise
around the compressor case to pivot the vane arms and set the vane angle
that optimizes engine operability.” Id.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are reproduced below:
1. A section of a gas turbine engine comprising:
a plurality of variable vanes circumferentially disposed
about an engine axis;
a first moveable annular ring disposed on an upstream
side of the variable vanes;
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

3
a second moveable annular ring disposed on a
downstream side of the variable vanes,
a plurality of vane arms, each including a first end
secured to the first annular ring and a second end secured to the
second annular ring;
a bell crank configured to move the first and second
rings; and
wherein movement of the first and second annular rings
moves the vane arms, thereby actuating the plurality of variable
vanes.
15. A variable vane assembly comprising:
a vane arm including a portion that engages a variable
vane, a first end configured to be secured to a first movable
annular ring, and a second end configured to be secured to a
second movable annular ring; and
wherein movement of the first and second annular rings
via a bell crank moves the vane arms, thereby actuating the
plurality of variable vanes.
18. A method of actuating a variable vane assembly
comprising the steps of:
securing a variable vane to a vane arm, the vane arm
secured to a first movable annular ring at a first end and a
second movable annular ring at a second end; and
moving the first and second rings via a bellcrank to move
the vane arm.
All three independent claims require movement of the first and second
rings by a bell crank to move a vane arm. Claim 18 requires securing a
variable vane to the vane arm and securing one end of the vane arm to the
first ring and a second end of the vane arm to the second ring. Claim 15
requires a vane arm portion to engage a variable vane, one end of the vane
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

4
arm to be secured to the first ring, and a second end of the vane arm to be
secured to the second ring. Claim 1 requires a plurality of variable vanes
and a plurality of vane arms, where each arm includes a first end secured to
the first ring and a second end secured to the second ring. Claim 1 further
requires activation of the plurality of variable vanes.
REFERENCES
Bessagnet US Pat. No. 7,673,457 B2 Mar. 9, 2010
Downing US Pat. No. 3,914,066 Oct. 21, 1975
Norris US Pat. No. 3,873,230 Mar. 25, 1975
Williamson US Pat. No. 3,360,240 Dec. 26, 1967
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 14–18, and 20–22 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Williamson and Norris. Final Act. 3. The
pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 applies. Id. at 2.
Claims 8 and 9 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Williamson, Norris, and Downing. Id. at 8.
Claims 12 and 13 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Williamson, Norris, and Bessagnet. Id. at 9.
OPINION
A. The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 14–18
and 20–22 as obvious over Williamson and Norris
1. Independent Claims 1, 15, and 18
According to the Examiner, Williamson discloses each limitation of
claim 1 except for the requirement of a bell crank configured to move the
first and second rings. Final Act. 3. To account for that limitation, the
Examiner determines the following:
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

5
Norris (Abstract, Fig. 1) teaches a vane actuation system
in which unison rings are used to rotate adjacent rings in opposite
directions and that bell cranks are used to rotate the rings. Since
both the bell cranks of Norris and the mechanism of Williamson
both rotate unison rings, it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Williamson’s engine section by replacing Williamson’s
rotation mechanism with bell cranks as taught by Norris, as a
simple substitution of one well known mechanism for rotating
unison rings for another to obtain the predictable result of
rotating the variable vanes. KSR [Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007)], MPEP [Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure] 2141 III B[.]
Id. (Emphases added).
Also according to the Examiner, Williamson discloses each limitation
of claim 15, except for the requirement that movement of the first and
second annular rings via a bell crank moves the vane arms. Id. at 5–6. To
account for that limitation, the Examiner reiterates the paragraph we quoted
above in the context of claim 1, but refers to modifying “Williamson’s
variable vane assembly” instead of modifying “Williamson’s engine
section.” Compare id. at 6, with id. at 3.
Further according to the Examiner, Williamson discloses each
limitation of claim 18, except for the requirement of moving the first and
second rings via a bell crank to move the vane arm. Id. at 6–7. To account
for that limitation, the Examiner reiterates the paragraph we quoted above in
the context of claim 1, but refers to modifying “Williamson’s method”
instead of modifying “Williamson’s engine section.” Compare id. at 7, with
id. at 3.
Appellant makes a single common argument, directed to the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18. App. Br. 4. Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

6
that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have applied the teachings of
Norris in the context of the system of Williamson. Id. The argument is
stated as follows:
Each of claims 1, 15, and 18 recite “a bell crank configured
to move the first and second annular rings.” The Examiner relies
on Norris for this feature, and alleges it would have been a
“simple modification” to add the bell crank of Norris to
Williamson. Final Office Action at 3–4. In particular, the
Examiner points to bell crank 365 in Norris, which is attached to
rings 24, 26. Id. However, the rings 24, 26 are very different
from the rings in Williamson. In Norris, each of the rings 24, 26
is secured to its own individual sets of vanes. See Norris at col.
2, lines 18–30 and Figure 1. Therefore, the bell crank in Norris
is connected to two rings that each effect movement of two
independent sets of vanes. In Williamson, rings 33 and 34 are
both connected to the same set of variable vanes 20, as the
Examiner points out in the rejection. Final Office Action at 3.
Therefore, actuation of Williamson’s rings effects movement of
only the vanes 20. In sum, the Norris bellcrank operates an
entirely different sort of system than the system of Williamson.
Accordingly, the bell crank in Norris would not be a “simple
substitution” for any feature in Williamson that would have a
“predictable result,” as the Examiner alleges.
Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner rejects Appellant’s argument and explains as
follows:
Williamson (Fig. 1-4) discloses a variable stator vane assembly
for a gas turbine engine (10) where two unison rings (33, 34) are
coupled to a single stage of vanes (20). The unison rings (33, 34)
are coupled to a common actuator (35) which is used to rotate
both rings, which rotate the vanes (20). Norris (Fig. 1) discloses
a variable stator vane assembly (14, 16, 18, or 20) for a gas
turbine engine (Col. 1, lines 5–6) where each stage of vanes is
coupled to a single unison ring (22, 24, 26, 28, or 30). Norris
(Fig. 1) discloses that the unison rings are rotated by a set of bell
cranks (34, 36, 38, and 40) which are rotated by a common
actuator (58). Norris (Fig. 1) further discloses that each bell
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

7
crank (38 – rotates single ring, 36 – rotates two rings) can either
rotate a single unison ring (28) or two unison rings (24, 26).
Since both Williamson and Norris disclose actuating variable
stator vane assemblies within gas turbine engines and both
systems can include rotating dual unison rings with a common
actuator, it would be reasonable for one having ordinary skill in
the art to recognize that the bell crank of Norris could perform
the same function as the actuator of Williamson, which is to
rotate to unison rings at once. Whether the rings are coupled to
the same stage of vanes or different stages does not destroy the
invention of Williamson, as the bell crank of Norris would still
cause rotation of both unison rings and so still rotate the stator
vane assembly. Based on this reasoning, it would be obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Williamson with
Norris as a simple substitution.
Ans. 3–4.
In its Reply, Appellant reiterates that, unlike Williamson, Norris does
not disclose any bell crank configured to effect movement of a set of rings
that are both connected to the same set of vanes. Reply 2. Appellant
reasons, again, as follows:
In other words, all of the bell cranks described in Norris are
configured to move a ring that effects movement of a set of vanes
on its own. In contrast, the rings in Williamson are paired, so
that two rings together effect movement of a single set of vanes.
Therefore, the rings in Norris are entirely different from those in
Williamson, and it would not be a simple substitution to add a
bell crank as taught by Norris to the Williamson rings.
Id. Additionally, Appellant argues:
[T]hough the Examiner asserts both references “can include
rotating dual unison rings” (Examiner’s Answer at 4), the unison
rings are entirely different from one another. The Examiner
asserts “the bell crank of Norris would still cause rotation of both
unison rings. . .” (Id.) without any support and without any
answer to Appellant’s argument. In short, the Examiner has
provided no support for the allegation that one of ordinary skill
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

8
in the art would have made the proposed combination. For
instance, the Examiner failed to make a finding that the result
would have been predictable, as required by MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Id.
For reasons discussed below, we disagree with Appellant (1) that the
Examiner has provided no support for the allegation that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have made the proposed combination; (2) that the
Examiner has failed to make a finding that the result would have been
predictable; (3) that the operation of the unison rings in Williamson and in
Norris are entirely different; and (4) that it would not be a simple
substitution to add a bell crank as taught by Norris to the Williamson rings.
The Examiner has provided cogent and succinct reasoning why one
with ordinary skill would have applied the bell crank teachings of Norris in
Williamson’s system to use a bell crank to move the first and second rings,
despite the fact that, in Norris, each ring is connected to a separate set or
stage of vanes and, in Williamson, the two rings are connected to the same
set or stage of vanes. Ans. 3–4. We reproduce the most pertinent part of the
Examiner’s reasoning here:
Since both Williamson and Norris disclose actuating variable
stator vane assemblies within gas turbine engines and both
systems can include rotating dual unison rings with a common
actuator, it would be reasonable for one having ordinary skill in
the art to recognize that the bell crank of Norris could perform
the same function as the actuator of Williamson, which is to
rotate to unison rings at once. Whether the rings are coupled to
the same stage of vanes or different stages does not destroy the
invention of Williamson, as the bell crank of Norris would still
cause rotation of both unison rings and so still rotate the stator
vane assembly.
Id. at 4. The Examiner has made more than an adequate explanation as to
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

9
why, with respect to using a bell crank to move a pair of unison rings, it is
inconsequential whether the unison rings are connected to the same set or
stage of variable vanes. The Examiner proposes to use a bell crank for what
it is taught to do in Norris, i.e., move a pair of unison rings.
In contrast, Appellant does not explain why using a bell crank could
or would no longer be used to move a pair of unison rings if the rings are
connected to the same set of variable vanes, as is the case in Williamson.
Appellant simply makes an assertion, without meaningful explanation. A
prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of
technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and
attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898,
907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The use of patents as references is not limited to what
the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
they are concerned, as they are a part of the literature and are relevant for all
they contain. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re
Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We see no reason to read
Norris, from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art, as limiting
the use of bell cranks to unison rings which move separate sets of variable
vanes. Appellant has articulated no basis for making that distinction.
Similarly, with regard to Appellant’s assertion that the operation of
the unison rings of Williamson and Norris are entirely different, because
Williamson’s rings are connected to the same set of variable vanes and that
Norris’s rings are connected to different sets of variable vanes, Appellant
does not explain why or how that difference matters in the context of using a
bell crank to move both rings at once. It is manifestly evident that operation
of the unison rings of Williamson and of Norris are not “entirely different,”
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

10
as Appellant asserts, given that both Williamson and Norris disclose using
one or more unison rings to activate a set of variable vanes.
We disagree with Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner failed to
make a finding that the result of the proposed combination would have been
predictable. Reply 2. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner determined
that the proposed modification of Williamson in light of Norris would have
been “a simple substitution of one well known mechanism for rotating
unison rings for another to obtain the predictable result of rotating the
variable vanes.” Final Act. 3. It is not necessary that the Examiner reiterate
that determination in the Examiner’s Answer, even if the Examiner
supplemented its reasoning in the Examiner’s Answer, as Appellant asserts
(Reply 2).
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s “not a simple
substitution” argument. The Examiner has provided sufficient explanation
to support the determination that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Williamson with Norris, in the proposed
manner, as a simple substitution of one well known mechanism for rotating
unison rings for another to obtain the predictable result of rotating the
variable vanes. Final Act. 3. In contrast, Appellant has not articulated any
technical difficulty or complexity in making the proposed substitution that
would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level
possessed by one with ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18.
Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

11
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18 as
obvious over Williamson and Norris.
2. Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 14, 16–17, and 20–22
Each of claims 2, 4–7, 10, 11, and 14 depends, directly or indirectly,
from independent claim 1. Each of claims 16, 17, 21, and 22 depends,
directly or indirectly, from independent claim 15. Claim 20 depends directly
from independent claim 18. Because Appellant has not separately argued
the merits of claims 2, 4–7, 10, 11, and 14 apart from the arguments
presented for claim 1, these claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Because Appellant has not separately argued the merits of
claims 16, 17, 21, and 22 apart from the arguments presented for claim 15,
these clams stand or fall with claim 15. Id. Because Appellant has not
separately argued the merits of claim 20 apart from the arguments presented
for claim 18, claim 20 stands or falls with claim 18. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 14, 16,
17, and 20–22 as obvious over Williamson and Norris.
B. The rejection of Claims 8 and 9 as
Obvious over Williamson, Norris, and Downing
Claims 8 and 9 each depend indirectly from claim 1. Because
Appellant has not separately argued the merits of claims 8 and 9 apart from
the arguments presented for claim 1, these claims stand or fall with
independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, Appellant
has not shown error in the rejection of claims 8 and 9. We sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Williamson, Norris, and
Downing.

Appeal 2019-003616
Application 14/774,899

12
C. The Rejection of Claims 12 and 13 as
Obvious over Williamson, Norris, and Bessagnet
Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and claim 13 depends from claim 12.
Because Appellant has not separately argued the merits of claims 12 and 13
apart from the arguments presented for claim 1, these claims stand or fall
with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly,
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of claims 12 and 13. We
sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable over Williamson,
Norris, and Bessagnet.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7,
10, 11, 14–
18, 20–22
103 Williamson and
Norris
1, 2, 4–7, 10,
11, 14–18,
20–22

8, 9 103 Williamson, Norris,
and Downing
8, 9
12, 13 103 Williamson, Norris,
and Bessagnet
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–18,
20–22

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED